Upshot: A ‘Blue’ Florida? There Are No Quick Demographic Fixes for Democrats

[Virginiá]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/upshot/a-blue-florida-there-are-no-quick-demographic-fixes-for-democrats.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Within 20 or so years, Florida will be deep blue... because it'll be underwater.

[Young Conservative]

I don't see Florida voting to allow felons to vote.

[Doimper]

I don't see Florida voting to allow felons to vote.

Yeah, the panhandle is going to screw this up.

[TML]

As one prominent Democratic strategist in Florida has stated, the Democrats need to gain 4 Hispanic voters to offset every white voter they lose to the Republicans. This means they still need to focus on increasing their white vote share in FL to about 40% or so (compared to Hillary's 32% in 2016).

[Skill and Chance]

As one prominent Democratic strategist in Florida has stated, the Democrats need to gain 4 Hispanic voters to offset every white voter they lose to the Republicans. This means they still need to focus on increasing their white vote share in FL to about 40% or so (compared to Hillary's 32% in 2016).

This is why Florida is more likely to go hard right than hard left if it does move over the next decade.  Many of the FL retirement communities are already becoming pro-Trump political machines.  IMO this is also an underrated part of how the GOP stayed on top in NC.

[Devils30]

35% will probably do it for Dems in Florida with whites these days.

[Skill and Chance]

As one prominent Democratic strategist in Florida has stated, the Democrats need to gain 4 Hispanic voters to offset every white voter they lose to the Republicans. This means they still need to focus on increasing their white vote share in FL to about 40% or so (compared to Hillary's 32% in 2016).

This is why Florida is more likely to go hard right than hard left if it does move over the next decade.  Many of the FL retirement communities are already becoming pro-Trump political machines.  IMO this is also an underrated part of how the GOP stayed on top in NC.

Yes but Democrats keep on telling themselves that Puerto Rican’s are going to vote out the buffoon en masse and won’t notice what you’re saying until it’s too late

True, but your side is making the very same mistake in Texas and Arizona right now.

As an aside, it will be funny when, circa 2050, Millennial retirees are the strongest left-voting block and the youth vote is right-leaning!

[junior chįmp]

The polling geniuses over at Upshot told us Hillary would win NC by 7% according to their genius models. They told us Trump could never win the primaries and that Hillary would win the GE and who could forget about clown Nate Silvers prediction that Bernie Sanders has a < 0.1% chance of winning Indiana. Data and polling has its limits and they are vast.

There is no bigger menace in politics than the pollsters and consultants who keep dishing out articles like this that create self fulfilling prophecies of losses for those that read them.

[uti2]

The polling geniuses over at Upshot told us Hillary would win NC by 7% according to their genius models. They told us Trump could never win the primaries and that Hillary would win the GE and who could forget about clown Nate Silvers prediction that Bernie Sanders has a < 0.1% chance of winning Indiana. Data and polling has its limits and they are vast.

There is no bigger menace in politics than the pollsters and consultants who keep dishing out articles like this that create self fulfilling prophecies of losses for those that read them.

So you are skeptical of them for all those reasons, but you still believe them when they say that a normal republican would've easily beaten Clinton?

[junior chįmp]

The polling geniuses over at Upshot told us Hillary would win NC by 7% according to their genius models. They told us Trump could never win the primaries and that Hillary would win the GE and who could forget about clown Nate Silvers prediction that Bernie Sanders has a < 0.1% chance of winning Indiana. Data and polling has its limits and they are vast.

There is no bigger menace in politics than the pollsters and consultants who keep dishing out articles like this that create self fulfilling prophecies of losses for those that read them.

So you are skeptical of them for all those reasons, but you still believe them when they say that a normal republican would've easily beaten Clinton?

All I'm saying is predictive models are bullshít because they always find some intellectual sounding excuse for when it fails. Wether or not a "generic Republican" would of beaten Hillary is anyone's guess but I seem to remember Nate Silver saying there weren't enough pissed off white people to elect Trump but I guess now we're lead to believe a generic Republican would of actually lost despite people like Lichtman saying a generic Republican would of won

[uti2]

The polling geniuses over at Upshot told us Hillary would win NC by 7% according to their genius models. They told us Trump could never win the primaries and that Hillary would win the GE and who could forget about clown Nate Silvers prediction that Bernie Sanders has a < 0.1% chance of winning Indiana. Data and polling has its limits and they are vast.

There is no bigger menace in politics than the pollsters and consultants who keep dishing out articles like this that create self fulfilling prophecies of losses for those that read them.

So you are skeptical of them for all those reasons, but you still believe them when they say that a normal republican would've easily beaten Clinton?

All I'm saying is predictive models are bullshít because they always find some intellectual sounding excuse for when it fails. Wether or not a "generic Republican" would of beaten Hillary is anyone's guess but I seem to remember Nate Silver saying there weren't enough pissed off white people to elect Trump but I guess now we're lead to believe a generic Republican would of actually lost despite people like Lichtman saying a generic Republican would of won

Lichtman actually said in the summer of 2016 that Clinton would win:

http://dailybruin.com/2016/08/15/experts-predict-clinton-win-during-hammer-museum-lecture-2/

"Lichtman added his model currently predicts Clinton will win about 52 percent of the vote because eight of the test statements are true."

He changed his mind in late September 2016.

Prior to 2016, Lichtman claimed his model was based on the popular vote to justify the 2000 discrepancy, so paradoxically, Lichtman has to either be right about 2000 or 2016, he's trying to have it both ways instead.

[junior chįmp]

The polling geniuses over at Upshot told us Hillary would win NC by 7% according to their genius models. They told us Trump could never win the primaries and that Hillary would win the GE and who could forget about clown Nate Silvers prediction that Bernie Sanders has a < 0.1% chance of winning Indiana. Data and polling has its limits and they are vast.

There is no bigger menace in politics than the pollsters and consultants who keep dishing out articles like this that create self fulfilling prophecies of losses for those that read them.

So you are skeptical of them for all those reasons, but you still believe them when they say that a normal republican would've easily beaten Clinton?

All I'm saying is predictive models are bullshít because they always find some intellectual sounding excuse for when it fails. Wether or not a "generic Republican" would of beaten Hillary is anyone's guess but I seem to remember Nate Silver saying there weren't enough pissed off white people to elect Trump but I guess now we're lead to believe a generic Republican would of actually lost despite people like Lichtman saying a generic Republican would of won

Lichtman actually said in the summer of 2016 that Clinton would win:

http://dailybruin.com/2016/08/15/experts-predict-clinton-win-during-hammer-museum-lecture-2/

"Lichtman added his model currently predicts Clinton will win about 52 percent of the vote because eight of the test statements are true."

He changed his mind in late September 2016.

Prior to 2016, Lichtman claimed his model was based on the popular vote to justify the 2000 discrepancy, so paradoxically, Lichtman has to either be right about 2000 or 2016, he's trying to have it both ways instead.

Well that tells you how accurate his predictive model is. He needs to keep "adjusting" it and changing it (mostly so as not to appear as being wrong since he is considered an authority on the subject). Lichtman is no different from the average Atlas user when it comes to predictions.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

As one prominent Democratic strategist in Florida has stated, the Democrats need to gain 4 Hispanic voters to offset every white voter they lose to the Republicans. This means they still need to focus on increasing their white vote share in FL to about 40% or so (compared to Hillary's 32% in 2016).

This is why Florida is more likely to go hard right than hard left if it does move over the next decade.  Many of the FL retirement communities are already becoming pro-Trump political machines.  IMO this is also an underrated part of how the GOP stayed on top in NC.

Yes but Democrats keep on telling themselves that Puerto Rican’s are going to vote out the buffoon en masse and won’t notice what you’re saying until it’s too late

True, but your side is making the very same mistake in Texas and Arizona right now.

As an aside, it will be funny when, circa 2050, Millennial retirees are the strongest left-voting block and the youth vote is right-leaning!

Makes you wonder what the dividing line will be between the parties in 30-40 years

[The Mikado]

You don't even need to project it forward. Just 15 or 20 years ago, retirees were a massively Democratic cohort because they were the old Depression FDR generation who have since mostly aged out of the electorate. Retirees aren't inherently Republican, it's just that the present cohort of them are pretty right wing. We might have a similar situation in the 2030s-2040s when all the late 1960s/1970 births (The Xers) retire, as they're a lean-GOP demographic, as well.

[Skill and Chance]

You don't even need to project it forward. Just 15 or 20 years ago, retirees were a massively Democratic cohort because they were the old Depression FDR generation who have since mostly aged out of the electorate. Retirees aren't inherently Republican, it's just that the present cohort of them are pretty right wing. We might have a similar situation in the 2030s-2040s when all the late 1960s/1970 births (The Xers) retire, as they're a lean-GOP demographic, as well.

Yes, I don't think we are back in an old people = left-leaning scenario until 2050-2070 when the Millennials retire.  I do believe we are seeing a social conservative/economic left pattern with people born in the 2000's, which will surprise a lot of pundits.

[PragmaticPopulist]

This was pretty much what I thought. Demographics in FL are constantly canceling each other out. I guess the right kind of Democrat could win over a few of those registered Democrats in the eastern portion of the panhandle that typically vote GOP in presidential elections to make up for GOP-leaning transplants, but even that's a bit of a stretch.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The polling geniuses over at Upshot told us Hillary would win NC by 7% according to their genius models. They told us Trump could never win the primaries and that Hillary would win the GE and who could forget about clown Nate Silvers prediction that Bernie Sanders has a < 0.1% chance of winning Indiana. Data and polling has its limits and they are vast.

There is no bigger menace in politics than the pollsters and consultants who keep dishing out articles like this that create self fulfilling prophecies of losses for those that read them.

So you are skeptical of them for all those reasons, but you still believe them when they say that a normal republican would've easily beaten Clinton?

All I'm saying is predictive models are bullshít because they always find some intellectual sounding excuse for when it fails. Wether or not a "generic Republican" would of beaten Hillary is anyone's guess but I seem to remember Nate Silver saying there weren't enough pissed off white people to elect Trump but I guess now we're lead to believe a generic Republican would of actually lost despite people like Lichtman saying a generic Republican would of won

Lichtman actually said in the summer of 2016 that Clinton would win:

http://dailybruin.com/2016/08/15/experts-predict-clinton-win-during-hammer-museum-lecture-2/

"Lichtman added his model currently predicts Clinton will win about 52 percent of the vote because eight of the test statements are true."

He changed his mind in late September 2016.

Prior to 2016, Lichtman claimed his model was based on the popular vote to justify the 2000 discrepancy, so paradoxically, Lichtman has to either be right about 2000 or 2016, he's trying to have it both ways instead.

Well that tells you how accurate his predictive model is. He needs to keep "adjusting" it and changing it (mostly so as not to appear as being wrong since he is considered an authority on the subject). Lichtman is no different from the average Atlas user when it comes to predictions.

He also starts with it 1860 because the Democrats had only around 4 keys in 1856, and won.

[BoAtlantis]

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/data-blue-states-getting-redder-red-states-getting-redder/

Almost all states for which the data are available are seeing net increase in voter registration for Republican versus Democrats.

It seems to me that two things are happening.

1) Conservative Democrats are switching parties.
2) New 18+ year olds are becoming Trumpians.

Democrats may very well win the popular vote again. But as long as they continue to flock toward cities, they will have tough time winning EC.

[Person Man]

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/data-blue-states-getting-redder-red-states-getting-redder/

Almost all states for which the data are available are seeing net increase in voter registration for Republican versus Democrats.

It seems to me that two things are happening.

1) Conservative Democrats are switching parties.
2) New 18+ year olds are becoming Trumpians.

Democrats may very well win the popular vote again. But as long as they continue to flock toward cities, they will have tough time winning EC.

People making more money?

[Young Conservative]

Democrats should stop worrying about flipping states when numerous states may continue to flip away from them. OHio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.

Exit polls in 2016 showed a serious age disparity in minnesota that should concern Democrats.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/minnesota/president

The only reason they won was a result of those over 65. Those under 24 voted for Trump by 5 points.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Democrats should stop worrying about flipping states when numerous states may continue to flip away from them. OHio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.

Exit polls in 2016 showed a serious age disparity in minnesota that should concern Democrats.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/minnesota/president

The only reason they won was a result of those over 65. Those under 24 voted for Trump by 5 points.

Very interesting how Independent men leaned towards Clinton but Independent women leaned towards Trump

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

The long run trends favor democrats, but I can't see Florida giving the vote back to 1.5 million felons and Hispanic turnout is always well below white and black turnout levels. For those that just moved from Puerto Rico and are most likely poor, not home-owners, and Spanish-speaking, it would likely be even lower. The continued influx of white retirees from the North is enough to hold off democrat domination there for a while yet.

[Person Man]

How would Florida vote if it voted like the nation in terms of race, religion, and population size? How much is disorganization and low energy actually costing Democrats down here?
Is it really disorganization/charisma issues or is it just that they have to start just running more independently-minded candidates to start winning, like how they had to do with Ritter or the Salazars in Colorado to appeal to conservativeish city dwellers, minorities, and non-Fundamentalists. I mean even though Colorado polls very well for pro-choice sensibilities, Ritter ran a moderately Pro-Life campaign.

Then again, maybe Florida is just too spread out to have a lot of the same sensibilities that are in New Jersey or even Minnesota. I definitely think Cubans should be considered white since ancestorily they are Spanish and vote more like the Italians than the Puerto Ricans. Or maybe it really is the age that does it.

It's just that a state as built up and diverse should vote like Michigan used to or maybe how Colorado or Nevada does. Instead it votes more like North Carolina, Arizona, or how New Hampshire used to.

[Devils30]

The 2016 exits also showed double digit Democratic wins among young people in FL, GA, NC and that isn't a concern for the GOP?